Once again, like the proverbial bad penny, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) is filing yet another "bring back the draft" bill. His motive is transparently clear, and one he's repeatedly stated: by forcing people into the military, he hopes to end the war in Iraq -- and any future military entanglements.

The sheer dumbassery of Rangel's plan transcends so many different levels, it astonishes me.

First up, there's the treatment of the military as "punishment" or "obligation." We had that for a very, very long time in this country. It was Rangel's own ideological predecessors that pushed so hard for mandatory military conscription to be ended over 30 years ago, and (as much as it pains me to say so) they were right. By converting to an all-volunteer military, we (after some tough teething pains) ended up with the world's finest, most professional, most capable, most efficient, military. Those who serve today see their service as a privilege, as an opportunity, and not as a burden. Rangel's plan would devastate that, and bring back the days of the professionals having to deal with hordes of new "recruits" that want nothing more than to get the hell out of service.

Second, there's the incredibly convoluted legal situation it would bring about. Think our society is lawsuit-heavy now? Wait until would-be draftees get their hands on the legal system. Watch for whole classifications of people declared legally ineligible for the draft, for a horde of newly-discovered "disabilities" and "conditions" and "circumstances." The ACLU will have to triple its staff just to defend those who have suddenly discovered that they aren't fit for military service, and the government will spend even more money trying to enforce Rangel's folly.

Third, the military is doing all right right now for recruits. They have had good months and bad months, but overall they're hitting their quotas. And the re-enlistment rates are going fine -- in fact, the troops serving in Iraq are re-upping at a higher rate than those outside the war zones.

Finally, Rangel betrays his fundamental prejudices and anti-military beliefs with this move. The primary function of the United States Armed Services is to defend the United States and our interests. Their primary tool for that is force -- either violence, or the threat of violence. They are not social workers or institutions for societal change or useful tools for social causes, and to attempt to do that with them is not only incredibly inefficient, but diminishes their ability to carry out that primary function. (See Clinton's Follies in Somalia and the Balkans for examples.)

Rangel is turning into a Johnny One-Note on the issue of the draft, and it's a sour one.

The one redeeming feature of Rangel's fixation with bringing back the draft is that it might -- just might -- keep him from other mischief, now that he's the chairman of the powerful House Ways And Means Committee. But I have little faith in that; he strikes me as the kind of man who can simultaneously engage in a whole host of bad ideas, all at once.

(And before anyone asks, no, I'm not going to discuss my own military service or lack thereof, nor my own eligibility for any draft. As flattered as I am by the attentions of those who bring up such things, this is not about me. I could be a triple amputee with five Purple Hearts and two Medals of Honor, or a 19-year-old who would score 1-A with the draft board, and my points above would be just as valid. So just get over me, will ya?)

Actually, the military standards are far higher than they were in the bad old days of the draft.

They had tightened requirements significantly due to the drastic downsizing of the force after the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the recent relaxing of standards still leaves the qualification tighter than it was.

Time was, judges gave first offenders the choice of prison time or joining the military. No more.

The statements above to the contrary are libelous of our military, and betray the typical anti-military bias of the extreme left.

Sigh, jp2 shows his prejudice against military once again--not only are we vets stupid but now we are rapists too jp2? Let me guess--you really haven't done one damn thing for anybody in your life other than yourself have you? Just another useless gumflapper.

Anyhoo, as a vet--and one who went through Iraq the first time--I think a draft would be an unmitigated disaster for the military. It will NOT "share the sacrifice" and it will NOT promote patriotism--no more than Vietnam and the draft made the 60s generation patiotic.

It is nothing more than a shameless attempt to destroy the military or somehow hide the fact that the real issue is that many on the left are too selfish to understand sacrifice, patriotism, and honor.

JP2: So you're saying we NEED a draft because we haven't enough troops?.. I was a DI in the late 60's.. needless to say, the "Quality" of those people was a notch above convicts! Please tell me how Rangel's STUPID idea ISN'T just another polictical ploy. Jesus.. please call it what it is! Defending it because he's a liberal is just plain insulting.

There are far more rapist in the left wing elitist 'college crack head crowd' than there are in the military. JP2 being one of the crowd of elitest (he thinks) knows this. Most of the guys in the military know there's plenty out there for free and they don't have to force anyone.
Evidently we wouldn't be fighting the war if not for the left wing progressive Liberal's. According to Iran liberalism is the cause of terrorism and there is a well written book out that states that 9-11 was caused by 'liberal progressives' and the Hollywood slime merchants attempts to remove religion from the public venue.

When the army is accepting 42 year old recruits, there is a big, BIG problem. Not since that felt by the Confederate Army had in 1864. Not a happy analogy there, and for those with GENUINE medical conditions, Uncle Sam doesn't want you anyway so relax. But why do the Bush-bots get so NERVOUS over the issue? Rangel's just pulling chains to hear whose teeth chatter and whose knees start knocking. That's a service in itself!

"Actually, the military standards are far higher than they were in the bad old days of the draft."

Really? I guess it must have been pretty bad back then. Anyways, we certainly have lowered our standards in the last few years, something Jay (not suprisingly) doesn't mention at all. We are doubling the amount of low aptitude recruits and letting in a larger portion of recruits with drug/alcohol/misdemeanor offenses.

But like I said, I'm sure Jay will be one of the first to sign up if the military needs new recruits. After all, he predicted the insurgency wouldn't last much longer (years ago), so I'm sure it will be safe, right?

His motive is transparently clear, and one he's repeatedly stated: by forcing people into the military, he hopes to end the war in Iraq -- and any future military entanglements.

That is if you buy the premise that he actually wants to succeed in instituting the draft. It seems clear from his statements that he has no hope of this ever coming to fruition, he just intends to use the threat of a draft to garner opposition to the war. It's a cheap stunt, a lame politician's move lacking any substance or honesty, designed to appeal to those in his constituency that feel military service is unfairly "inflicted" upon the poor. While it is important that people point out what the logical consequences of his proposal would be, as you have, it also shouldn't be taken seriously.

Side note: I think I figured out who Scrapiron is: Dinesh D'Souza! What a tool.

The only people as a group that would be scared of a draft are the progressives ... of course they all know that Rangel is just posturing so maybe they really aren't worried ...
Hatred for American and cowardice undermined the draft in the 60's - 70's and it the same with those that want to bring the draft back ...
Chickens**t liberals will always think that the military is stupid and useless ... right up until they need help, then they whine for protection ...

A draft will come if Bush or the Israelis bomb Iran, because the blowback of Iranians operating directly or through proxy militias like Badr and Jaysh Mahdi in Iraq (and Afghanistan, too), attacks on our allies like Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi, and the problems caused to the world oil supply.

The USA won't be able to hang on in the region without 000,000s of more forces. Given the record of incompetence and mistreatment of the troops, there won't be enough volunteers for that conflagration.

If Iran continues to promise to destroy Israel and aquires nuclear weapons what would your plan be ? Wait for one or two Israeli cities to be incinerated ?
Head in the sand, a** in the air ... typical ignorant progressive ...
If Iran did lite up the mideast with their proxies what makes you think that our allies couldn't fight off that bunch of ignorant savages that Iran employs ? Our allies the Etheopians seemed to do just fine in Somalia.
Don't the progressive, liberal greens want a mideast war to cut off the oil which would speed up their "alternative" energy plans anyway ? or does it just feel like that ...

I agree that the volunteer military has given us the best quality force ever, but that only works for a military about the size ours is now. The problem we face right now (regardless of Rangel's motivations) is that we simply do not have enough men and women to meet our requirements.

With our current commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere we would be hard pressed to meet the needs of a third front. Consider Iran for example, the country has 2.5 times the population of Iraq. Assuming that we should have had at least 250,000 troops to effectively occupy and hold all of Iraq (which of course we didn't), it would take upwards of 600,000 troops to invade and hold Iran.

Given that we are pressing our current people into third and fourth tours of duty in Iraq, it's clear that we don't have enough troops. So how do we get them? It's clear to me that the only answer is a mandatory draft.

In addition, a mandatory draft would teach some morals and discipline to our young people.

It's surprising that more self-described "hawks" aren't behind a restoration of the draft. I think it demonstrates a pre-9/11 mentality that simply isn't cognizant of the myriad and dangerous threats that we face in the world today.

I'd suggest you think about what you'd do if the Israelis or the US bombs Iran.

If you think that a global depression would not ensue following a near total disruption of Mid-East oil you are dumber than owl-sh_t. If you think Iran could not close the Persian gulf and overrun Iraq, you are nuts. You, with all your blather, can kiss the world as you know it goodbye.

If Rangel weren't so opposed to giving tax breaks to people who work, he could do something positive that would bring the kids of rich white folks into the military in droves. It's simple, just allow veterans who server in 2007 or later a year's full federal income tax exemption for every year of active service. And two year's full federal income tax exemption for every year of service in a combat zone. Each veteran can cash in these exemptions at anytime in their life.

This benefit could be worth lots of money to those who expect to make lots of money in the future, which is something having successful parents imparts to a person because of attitude, education and opportunity. At the other end of the economic spectrum, being from a poor family usually means less education and opportunity, so a future tax benefit won't mean much to them (it's understood there are exceptions to this trend, so don't lecture me about specific cases).

Besides having the strongest draw on the segment of the population to which military duty is least attractive, it really doesn't cost tax payers all that much. First, it's in the future and second, the cost is offset by the economic benefit each veteran brings to the economy. It sounds like the perfect proposal for so called "progressives" to push, but apparently its something only a conservative could conceive of.

cirby, you said: "Yeah, the problem is that the economy is still doing great, and we're not paying enlistees enough to compete with similarly-skilled civilian jobs.".....So you don't WANT to! I appreciate your honesty! But what about that $100,000 sign-on bonus I've heard about? Would you go then? And don't worry, shitting in public isn't that bad and your peter is of normal size.

That's, at the very least, a radical interpretation of what I actually said. At worst, it's crap.

I'm too old to reenlist right now, but I did sign up for four years in the Air Force when I was younger, during the Cold War (and worked in flight line operations for the USAF, not exactly a safe occupation).

I've applied for jobs with civilian contractors for work in Iraq, though, it's just that none of the jobs have come through (too much competition for the high-paying ones, and they fill the lower-paid positions with locals).

Jeff, talking to Iran might be a good idea, it's what the Baker Iraq Study Group recommended.

First, there's no estimate that they are within 5 years of making a bomb. Second, our own rhetoric has its reaction:

Bush 2002: Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, N.Korea

Iraq & Iran = no nukes. N. Korea = thought to have nukes.

Bush 2003: Kick Iraq's ass, kiss N.Korea's ass.

Not too hard for Iran to take the lesson there.

Security guarantees along with IAEA inspections might lessen the motivation for Iran to get nukes. Crazy Ahmedinajad is a transient figure, there are lots of potential common interests between the US and Iran. For example, the Iranians fought the Taliban and worked with us in Afghanistan to set up the Karzai government.

Israel has a pretty good nuclear deterrent, with 200+ weapons, including sub-launched nukes. The existance of Israel's nukes motivates others to get them.

I lived through the Cold War, with all of the same bellicose threats made now by the (not really in control) Ahmedinajad being made then by Khrushchev (We will bury you) and Mao (Running Dogs will be destroyed). With about 10 megatons for every US city targeted 24/7.

The Israelis will have to live with the same, unless someone calms down and thinks about cutting a deal with the Iranians. Of course, nobody can ever propose that, or having Israel make a proposal to set its borders and pull out of the rest, either.

If you want the draft back, for Americans to be involved in a huge war in the ME, maybe be humiliated in that war, have at it, have us or the Israelis bomb Iran without trying talking first.

MacLorry, good proposal, that and the Webb GI bill, but there comes a point where no financial incentives are enough to persuade young people to enlist in a meatgrinder.

Nice job, forgetting to mention the lowering of quotas AND standards. (It's how we end up with rapists)

Are you attempting to argue that the number of rapes committed by soldiers occurs at a higher rate than it does in the general public ? Do you have any data to suggest that this is the case ? Or are you simply a blithering moron whose dislike of the U.S. Military shows through when you're showing others what a fool you are ? Are you even intelligent enough to understand the implication of my first question ? (I'm going to wager that this will be met with silence which we'll take as a 'no' to the last question).

They declared war on the US in 1979 ...
The UN has been talking to them about their nuclear program for 10+ years ...
The US, France, UK and others have talked to them for the last several years ...

The Irainians started and fund Hamas ...
The Iranians fund and support terrorists in Iran ...

Talking to Iran ??? right ...

You have to ideas on what to do ...

Sounds like you want to do nothing and hope that a nuclear Iran doesn't take over Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia at some point in the next decade and use oil as a weapon against the US, Europe, Australia, etc ...

A slow STABLE spiral down is your only idea ...

It was folks that think like you that allowed Stalin and Ho Chi Min to slaughter tens of millions in the name of stability.

As our recruits lower in quality and the military lets more and more people in with psychological problems (what he was discharged for) and drug problems (which he had before he enlisted) then we will have more and more nasty incidents like the one Green was involved in. Not a black and white issue as you make it out to be _Mike_, but a clear problem because enlistment is down.

Does anyone else find it ironic that if Iran gets a nuke and nukes an American city most of the deaths would be liberals/prgressives? Actually as the North Koreans extend the range of their missles the first continental city in range would be San Francisco.

Now it is time for a fun filled made up fact:
Did you know a liberal/progressive is more likely to be a child molester than a normal person? Proof: here is Connecticut over the last half dozen years 5 politicians have gotten in serious trouble for "putting a minor at risk". They were all democrats (Mayor of Waterbury, Rep of Brooklyn and nearby towns, former Mayor of New Haven, a Former Selectman of Pomfret, and former Mayor of Bridgeport).

Another fun filled fact (not quite so made up): liberals/progressives are racists. Proofs: San Francisco has literally zoned most blacks out of the city, and outside of San Francisco any city nuke would yield a disportionate number of minorty deaths (black, hispanic, asian, etc), and yet the left is rooting for the Iranians to get the bomb.

Such B.S. by a bunch of pinheads with tiny little thoughts. I was a draftee in 1969; the American soldier then was as fine a human, as determined a warrior, as willing to die for country as any American who ever wore the uniform. To those who believe you can assess and judge the quality or worth of Americans who serve their country: Kiss my ass and all the dead and injured asses of my comrades-in-arms who served at the "selection of their friends and neighbors".

Last night at 3 a.m. I waited with my son as he drew his weapon with the 5/7 Cavalry, 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia (Rock of the Marne). This morning he boarded a plane for another tour in Iraq. His 3 year contract ended on January 6, 2007. Along with many in the 1st Brigade, my son was "stop-lossed" and his active duty extended till April 2008. His plan for college and dream of walking on the football field to try-out for the team are postponed, maybe forever. Like the "draftees" before them, these men did not want to go; but go they did: with military discipline, with determination, with honor and pride. They are, again, the unwilling doing so much for the undeserving and ungrateful who will, again, try to steal or destroy the glory and tribute due the American warrior.

The average lifespan during the mid 1800's was around 35 years in the U.S. Today it is around 75 years. Is it bad news that we say 42 years of age is not to old to serve? (coincidentally in Senator Boxer's statement finding, uh, "common ground" with Ms. Rice, states that her own children are too old to serve, being born in the 1970's now they have a chance!)

The All-Volunteer Force in the mid 80's was around 2.3 million - It is around 1.3 million today. To say that we can't have a larger military without a draft is kinda of stupid.

The standards for enlistees in 1983 (when I enlisted) where lower than in the late 90's because the US was trying to downsize its military. Now we need more soldiers, so we make it easier to enlist, go figure. I don't think anyone is proposing standards that match those of the draft.

Congressman Rangel does not want a draft - He just wants to make a political point. Anyone defending his draft proposals as a "shared sacrifice" or in any way taking his proposals seriously, shouldn't. Even he voted against his last proposal.

It should be clear that at the military is not full of rapists. It gets a lot of news because it does happen at military academies and basic training. The question is does it happen at a higher rate than in similar circumstances in the civilian world. I bet the military has a much lower rate of all types of crimes when compared to an equivalent civilian population. Maybe someone can dig up the statistics.

Finally, the first commenter out of the gate starts off with a modified version of the moronic chicken-hawk argument. What more needs to be said to discredit this argument other than this is the United States and we have civilian control of our military written into our constitution. One can express a political view without being a member of the military. Perhaps JP2, like Congressman Rangel is not being serious.

PorkSaladSandwich: you said: "The average lifespan during the mid 1800's was around 35 years in the U.S." Normal lifespan throughout recorded history has been in the 60s. More accidents (blood poisoning for the kiddies, and female problems)yes, but a man who lived the easy life then (as we do now, in comparison) could easily life into his 70s. Your's is a myth propogated beginning 150 years ago by the progressive social reformers wherein without social planning and control (theirs), we would revert to a " hypothetical primitive" state and never become uber-menschen. Quasi- Darwinian.

God, the trolls hate anything American. Their self loathing borders on the psychotic. They hate just to hate. We have 1.6 million military active now. 10 have been brought up on serious charges of murder or rape. Wow. They all must be bad. As a veteran, I say with all honesty, you trolls are cowards. Hiding behind a keyboard. Say what you say here to a person on active duty. Stand firm in your beliefs.

Salad man...I would venture to say when you joined..you had to be a H.S. graduate...no longer true////When you joined if there was a felony conviction no chance...that is no longer true...
When you and I joined we were not facing forced multiple tours in a combat zone where over 3,000 have died and over 20,000 requiring evacuation to Germany(ah because we don't have enough people joining)...I am assuming that after your four years you could get on with your life as I was able to get on with mine...as you know that is no longer true...
This is different than Viet Nam when I served..it is certainly different than your time of service...
It is ironic that as our equipment is so sophisticated, many of the volunteers have less education..,.
What were the documented instances of crooked recruiters when you joined...the recruiter scanals of the past few years are widespread and documented...

I do agree that those who have not served have an opinion equal to ours...as long as they don't claim to understand what it is like to be in combat...what it is like to stare into the lifeless eyes of your best friend...as long as they understand there are vets who trust our President and those of us who don't....Those that do support our President are patriots...those of us who don't are no less...

I am waiting for some Iraqi vets to post here..
Until then...all of us are simply lobbing our vacant (although sincere) opinions at each other......No Draft Ever Again...Bring'em Home
.......(although we may disagree on when and how, we all do want them home)

As our recruits lower in quality and the military lets more and more people in with psychological problems (what he was discharged for) and drug problems (which he had before he enlisted) then we will have more and more nasty incidents like the one Green was involved in. Not a black and white issue as you make it out to be _Mike_, but a clear problem because enlistment is down.

The point obviously went right over your head. You cite one person as an example and claim this to be evidence that the military has a problem. I can cite tens of thousands of examples from the general population. One person does not a trend make. If the military is 'scraping the bottom' as you're claiming, surely you have statistical data that illustrates that the rate of crimes committed by military personnel is higher than the rate of crimes committed by the general population... or even statistical data comparing the two in any manner. Surely you must have had something more than a few anecdotal cases that justify your conclusion... Surely...

Given that you've posted the assertion twice without citing any such data, one can only conclude that you're simply showing your bias and parroting some partisan crap that you've been fed.

The fact that individuals in a population CAN live to a ripe old age doesn't mean that on average the population DOES. You have confused the possible with the probable. Other than that the logic of your argument is fine (gibberish aside). How can we test it? How about you use that wonderful machine in front of you and search for "US Mortality Rates 1800 to present" or whatever works for you. Feel the myth, baby!

All of the liberal progressives should be backing Rangel's draft 100%. None of them would have to serve since he gave them an automatic out. Mental illness is classified as a medical problem and liberalism is a mental illness.

Hey Mantis, even the Iranian's say liberalism is the cause of terrorism. Are you accepting responsibility for the 3,000 deaths on 9-11.

Actually you have no idea who i am. I'm just an old man who served 22 years in the American military, retired and have lots of time to make fun of the idiots (you) in the country. Who knows, you might get in a car crash tonight (the ice storm is spreading) and look up and old Scrapiron will be standing there with the jaws of life. Please identify yourself so the jaws can slip and cut off the wrong damaged part, your head. ROFL
Well, gotta go. Have a three hour training session at the fire hall. Guess the train wrecks in Ky has everyone looking for more Hazmat incidents, of maybe it's this weeks announcement that 147 semi loads of nuclear waste from NY/NJ will soon be traveling the interstate system. Special training for that will come later. Everything in NY/NJ is hazmat waste, but this is nuclear.

Hey Mantis, even the Iranian's say liberalism is the cause of terrorism.

Well if "the Iranian's"(sic) say it then it must be true. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the violent nature of their religious texts or anything. It must be teh gay. And Hollywood. Oh, and not pushing Jesus in public schools. Muslims hate that.

twolaneflash, I feel for you and your son. Unless you're in the military or close to someone, you don't know how the repeated deployments, stop-loss and combat stress symptoms is affecting our troops and military families.

On 60 Minutes this past Sunday, Scott Pelley asked Bush if there were any limits on how many time he'd order soldiers to go back to Iraq, Bush's reply was, no, they're volunteers.

There will be a draft if the US attacks Iran, bet on it. Or the US will suffer a historic defeat and be run out of all of Eurasia, let alone the Middle East. Or both. It's not like the Russians or Chinese, both cozy with Iran, will be on our side.

Jeff:

[Iran] declared war on the US in 1979 ...

Why did Ledeen, Abrams, Poindexter, Ollie North sell the Iranians HAWK missiles and parts in 1985, then? This was only 2 years after their proxy Hezbollah bombed the Beirut Marine barracks.

These are the same people cheerleading for Bush to attack Iran now. They sent Khomeini a chocolate cake then.

But hey, if you support the enlistment of those with mental health and drug problems into the military, great. If you don't think it will lead to an increase in the crime rate, feel free to believe what you will. And good luck with your pretty, pretty pony.

If you think Iran could not close the Persian gulf and overrun Iraq, you are nuts. You, with all your blather, can kiss the world as you know it goodbye.Posted by: aRepukelican at January 16, 2007 03:29 PM

They tried and failed miserably during the Iran/Iraq tanker war of the early eighties. Did the price of oil go up? Sure but only on the backs of speculators just as it does today.

The only possible oil flow disruption today, Iran cutting production, would be quickly made up in increased supply from the Saudis who would be more than glad to reap the extra monetary benefits.

Actually as the North Koreans extend the range of their missles the first continental city in range would be San Francisco.

It's no surprise that conservatives don't know the first thing about geography. There is such a thing called the "curvature of the Earth". That puts Seattle, Portland and even parts of Montana closer to North Korea than San Francisco is.

But I guess you're the same people who looked at the 906-mile Iran-Iraq border before the war and thought it would be a piece of cake to police with a few thousand of our troops. Geniuses.

I think there is a need for a draft. We have challenging situations in Korea, China, Iran South America, and ,er, Iraq that need attention, and the small force we have now, basically a few boutique brigades in reserve, could not handle any real emergency. With Britain downsizing its forces and Europe already defunct, there is no help from them. I say it's only good sense to re-institute the draft.

Hey larkie that was some dumb reasoning. Why would you want to drop a missile in a cow pasture? LMAO

Uhh...if you read the thread dunce you will see that David was the one who suggested San Francisco was the closest target in the Continental US for North Korea to hit.

Which was of course totally wrong and totally irrelevant because if North Korea wanted to strike US interests they would much more likely hit Okinawa or Guam or our bases in South Korea than take a hail mary long shot at San Francisco.

But I wouldn't expect embittered right-wingers like yourself ever to actually think through the threats that exist to the country and how to counteract them. You're too busy officiating someone else's civil war than considering how to defend this country against the real threats we face and how to capture and kill the SOB that killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11.

So the rapists and murderers at Haditha, and Lindy English et al are our best and brightest, huh?

Actually, the folks like Lindy English are the bottom of the barrel, so they got stuck with guarding prisoners. This has held true with every war, for pretty much every country, for centuries (ever since they started taking prisoners instead of just killing the survivors). Haditha? A small handful of assholes in one incident (and they're being nailed for it as we speak).

Considering how many troops we have in combat, the conduct of our soldiers has been pretty damned great. For a comparison, Google "UN peacekeepers" and "Sudan."

A question to the lib a-wipes who think the draft is a great idea because the dragnet will get all those pampered white elites who otherwise can watch others die as they make millions in the mil-ind complex: Why are you so for the draft and so against ROTC at all college campus? Is it because you want to see those who don't want to serve, serve, and those who do wish to serve under the best circumstances they can afford, not? Hmm?

New deal. Lets all get behind Rangel's draft and contact all of our congress critters and demand they do everything possible to pass it. No turning back. Passed as proposed. No exemptions.

How long would it take for him to withdraw it? Don't let him, pass it with his name on it. Long after he's dead his relatives will visit, on leave, his grave just to piss in his face one more time.

Then he may have some really stupid relatives he's trying to get rid of and the only way to get them out of his house is to put them in the military, that is if they don't have to pass a test or spell their name.

One more time: Yes, most people died by 35 in 1850 (some sources have it as high as 38, but why quibble over 3 years). Note the past tense in "died", not "dies". This happened in the past and can be proven. In fact, you ought to go out to your nearest old graveyard and look at the "born on" and "died on" dates, since it seems you don't trust the internet in this fact. Mortality statistics are pretty well measured since the business of life insurance depends on getting the right numbers and predicting population mortality into the future. Although 1850 is not really the future is it? Now granted some "progressive social reformer" mind-control voodoo might be causing people to lie about dates on gravestones, confuse statisticians, and magically alter the business of insurance for the past 150 years, but I think that the odds are against it.

Personal experience tells me this draft idea is bad. I have a really bad draft in my room, and its hard as hell to keep warm. Now as a vet who got to roast in 140+ degree heat at least a few months a year from mid 90's to two years ago, and freeze my ass off in Iceland and Norway, I think I'm experienced enough to make a comment about this draft idea.

Its just plain bad. I say insulate ourselves from the idiots and stay warm. If it didn't stink so bad I'd suggest Rangle's posterior to plug up my draft.

I doubt KJI is boosting his missile range to strike at South Korea and Okinawa (Guam Perhaps) as these are within range of his existing missiles. Yet NK keeps working on missiles with enough range to hit the continental US, why...whatever could be the reason?

Thank goodness you are a supporter of missile defense...you are a supporter aren't you? Because I hate to think that you are just using the Korean missile threat as a club to bash Iraq...that would be downright dishonest.

PorkSaladSandwich; DAMN DUDE! Look at this chart: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html NOW: Seeing as we don't draft BABIES, let's skip to age 20 (are you there? good). Notice the sudden congruance in lifespans now? (It's 20 PLUS the number in the box!) As I said the 1st time, infant mortality skews the stats. IN CONCLUSION: a drafted 20 yr old, 35 year old, or 42 year old was not an "old man" in 1850. Their life expectancy was, as I said, in their 60s. And now you know!

Scrapiron, I teach at a Community College and have several students that have been activated from Inactive Reserve and have noted their response. I now have deployed students taking my online courses on their way to getting a degree dispite the fact that they are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given their views I can only surmise one of two things, either you are lying or you and your son are losers. Please tell me which applies.

Larkin, you know just enough to be stupid (as opposed to being ignorant). the "great arc" that Portland and Seatle may be on is completely different than San Fan. Troops deploying to Korea do not use the former cities but rather airports in southern California. Oh that's right, the military are a bunch of ignorant idiots that know nothing about the earth. Perhaps you should get a job to tell these idiots the truth of the world and save the US gold on fuel.

In addition I have a challenge for you, as a navigational sophisticate. I have actually sailed the South Pacific (and I mean SAILED). Without GPS you and I are dropped at the edge of the Nazca Plate and the Pacific Plate and the first to find a Pacific Island wins. Game?

I'm afraid to say Larkin is right on the distances - The geodesic distances (great circle, great arc, etc) from the No-Dong launch facility to the cities in question:

Seattle 7,915 km
Portland, Ore 8,047 km
San Fransisco 8,634 km

This is calculated on the WGS-84 ellipsoid using lat/lon rounded to the nearest minute. Used an in-house program, checked it against an internet geodesic calculator, and plotted it in ArcGIS. Even if carried to seconds, SF is still the farthest. Aircraft fly out of SF for a number of reasons including connecting hubs, approved airspace, etc. beyond just distance.

Deep breath man! Enjoy your winter wonder-land. I saw the chart this morning. Says if you survived being born, childhood, early teens, and being bled by leeches for cancer as an adult (just kidding), you'd live to be an old man. Kind of obvious don't you think? IF (and only if) you lived to be 20 without sticking your arm in a sawmill blade or falling down an open well chances are you'd live another 40 years. But in 1850 how many people born should you expect to live to 40? Less than half. While I don't think we want babies in the military I'm all for excluding the dead also.

So, I'll consider being alive and not a baby as the only criteria for eligibility to serve. I'm not considering the required elusive HS diploma, lacking which, makes you a dim-witted rapist if I follow JP2's logic. Anyway, using this eligibility half of any given crop of kids born in 1950 could be expected to be ineligible due to death by 1890. Today much less so (just look at your chart). I understand what you are saying - there is still a max age humans for humans (a biological limit - I've heard set at around 125) and that has moved upward little since 1850. That means you should see the convergence you noted. But we got a lot more people (%-wise) born in any given year living to the ripe old age of 20, 40, 60, 70 etc. If you are the only one of two siblings to live to 40 you'd sure be considered a lot more lucky, healthy, etc. than if you both did.

If we can't agree that the chart shows that a greater percentage of people born in any year are living through 40 to past 70 than in 1850 and that this changes our concept of what middle and old age is and what we should consider normal life pursuits then we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can even call me a Quasi-Darwinian Progressive Voodoo Priest if you want. I still think it is a great thing to encourage all those extra 40 year olds (who'd be dead and thus ineligible to serve in the upcoming US civil war if this was 1850) to join-up. Its certainly not the military recruiting crisis you seem to believe it to be. Hell, didn't you ever see Stripes!?

_Mike_ - if you have any crime statistics from ANY American war, please forward it to me. Otherwise, keep wishing for magic ponies. It seems that's what you do best.

Let me recap...
1)jp2 made an assertion.
2)I challenged the assertion by asking for some factual basis for the conclusion.
3)jp2 responds by saying there's no such factual basis.

Thanks for proving my point, although unwittingly.

The fact of the matter is that you have no basis for the conclusion that you're pushing other than your own apparent disdain for the our military. What's more is that you've made a fool of yourself and don't even realize it.

A question to the lib a-wipes who think the draft is a great idea because the dragnet will get all those pampered white elites who otherwise can watch others die as they make millions in the mil-ind complex: Why are you so for the draft and so against ROTC at all college campus? Is it because you want to see those who don't want to serve, serve, and those who do wish to serve under the best circumstances they can afford, not? Hmm?

Posted by: h at January 16, 2007 11:37 PM

Nope, we want to see phonies like all the republican wimps on this site who support the war put their fat asses where their big mouths are and go to Baghdad. I think it's very telling that there's this huge outcry from right-wingers to this post because they know Rangel is right.

When are the Bush twins going to Iraq? In fact, when are ANY of the Bushs, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Perles, et al going to Iraq? Never. They'll let others die for their war.

Are you going to stick with this name for a while, or are you going to cycle through your standard list of pseudonyms -- viet vet, bobbi pin, janew, jerzeygirl, changedmymind, bushsucks, nobushfan, carmine, etc. etc.?

I should reassure you that how many names you take for yourself, you can only get drafted once -- and having all those identities does NOT increase your chances of getting called up.

Ding! We have a wiener. The moronic chicken-hawk argument (MCHA for short) makes its re-appearance! "If you aren't in the service you can't say anything - but I will even though I'm not" - What a bunch of chump logic.

When someone who pretends to support the war makes a MCHA: Drink Twice!

When someone who pretends to be a Vet makes the MCHA: Drink a 6-pack!

When someone who pretends to be in the military makes the MCHA: Chug a 40 oz. or two and shout J-j-j-jesse Mc-Mc-Mc-McBeth!

Bonus: If the poster refers to the president as a Monkey, Chimp, Orangutan, Lemur, Gibbon, Macaque, or Tufted Capuchin do a straight shot. (Seriously, this insult just never gets old. Even after the 5 billionth clever use. Simply timeless, like the classics "liar-liar your pants are on fire" and "I know you are but what am I?")

Extra Bonus: Any combination of MacDonald's, Hitler, or Halliburton in one word gets a drink with an umbrella.

If you get a MCHA, a bonus, and the a extra bonus - You've scored the "Diamond Trifecta" aka "Defecta" and the poster has accomplished a "Defecation", Drink to the stink!

At least we can get a good drunk from rampant stupidness.

Warning: When someone who is really in the military makes a MCHA: Don't drink, run, they are planning a military coup.

maggysturn: I served 22 years, almost went into a nuclear war with Kennedy, served in Vietnam and I still support this war. I just hope you can look at the blood on your hands due to providing aid and comfort to the enemy and sleep tonight. What 200 died in two days because the dhimmi's supported by you have told the enemy we will forfeit the war to them, just keep killing and hang in there.

I don't want to hear the P & M when another 3,000, 300,000, or 3 million get killed by terrorists attacks on this country. Some folks are asking for it and you can be 100% sure the Islamic nuts will give it to you. We'll just have to remember who you are to make sure justice or you can call it revenge comes to your house.

In addition I have a challenge for you, as a navigational sophisticate. I have actually sailed the South Pacific (and I mean SAILED). Without GPS you and I are dropped at the edge of the Nazca Plate and the Pacific Plate and the first to find a Pacific Island wins. Game?

ut and paste the link below to see the cost of Monkey Ears' stupid war

Hmm..

BushHitler
Chimpy McHaliburton (and the 20 variations thereof)
...
Monkey Ears? Is this the new oh-so-sophisticated epithet circling around the drains of the DU? I love these simian-named "insults" hurled at the CIC. It's almost Pollackeque in it's precision.

Bet you wouldn't be using "Monkey" if our president was black...then again, judging from what some of the Leftist pundits have said about Rice...